[nkrisc]

This was a very interesting read and I think in very good analysis of the concept.

But I can’t shake the feeling that the points are all pretty mundane: computers exist in a human world bound by human conventions. After all, computers are made by and for humans to serve human needs, and they are subservient to the rules of human society, whether or not those rules can be digitally encoded in an absolute sense.

Like much of law, intent matters and intent can’t be read from a series of bytes, but is instead often determined by a human, outside the digital realm. If our laws didn’t consider intent it would be less of an issue.

I find none of that surprising. Though perhaps that means it wasn’t written for me.

[eru]

Oh, the interplay is important.

So when you are trying to hack into a security system (or try to prevent other people getting into such a system), it's important that you forget everything about intent and especially the intended abstractions.